Unity+

I never thought of that before, with the function and inverse. Therefore, I decided to continue your idea and add on my idea: [math]\frac{\mathrm{d} }{\mathrm{d} x}\left [ (3(odd)+1)(\frac{even-1}{3}) \right ]=\frac{\mathrm{d} }{\mathrm{d} x}\left [ (3(6x-3)+1)(\frac{(6x-3)2^{m}-1}{3}) \right ]=[/math] [math]\frac{\mathrm{d} }{\mathrm{d} x}\left [ (3(6x-3)+1)(\frac{(6x-3)2^{m}-1}{3}) \right ]=2^{m+1}(36x-17)-6[/math] Therefore, the result is an even number multiplied by an even/odd number, subtracting an even number.

So, working with my method, here is what I got so far: [math]\frac{\mathrm{d} }{\mathrm{d} x}\left [ \left(3x+1\right)\left(\frac{x-1}{3}\right) \right ] = 2x-\frac{2}{3}[/math] What I noticed was if you get the resulting function, you can do the same process with that function. This leads to the constant at the end of the result to eventually reach 0. [math]f_{N}(x)=\frac{\mathrm{d} }{\mathrm{d} x}\left [ f_{n}(x)f_{n}^{-1}(x) \right ] = 2x\pm \frac{1}{2^{n}}m[/math] [math]\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty } 2x\pm \frac{1}{2^{n}}m = 2x[/math] Some extra stuff, I decided to have the equation equal each function of the Collatz conjecture. [math]\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty } 2x\pm \frac{1}{2^{n}}m = 3x+1[/math] [math]2x\pm \lim_{n\rightarrow \infty } \frac{1}{2^{n}}m = 3x+1[/math] [math]0 =x +1[/math] [math]\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty } 2x\pm \frac{1}{2^{n}}m = x/2[/math] [math]2x = x/2[/math] [math]0 = -3x/2[/math] I dont know where this will lead. Just thought it was interesting. EDIT: Now the question is if [math]\left\{\begin{matrix} 3x+1 && x\mod2>0 \\\frac{x}{2}&& x\mod2=0 \end{matrix}\right.=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty } 2x\pm \frac{1}{2^{n}}m[/math]

It was in response to OP. I apologize for not clarifying.

Not necessarily. Although not as related, an example of the assumption fallacy is the summation of 1 to infinity. Although we think it is infinity, it actually would be -1/12(from Numberphile, a great YouTube Channel).

There is probably a plugin you can get for IP.Board that will allow you to do so. But I would say closing older threads wouldn't solve anything really. Just keep with the regular rules. If a post to an older thread is made that isn't sufficient to the rules of the forum, then delete it. Why solve a problem that doesn't exist?

To be honest, this post describes every movie that has been released within the last few years.

Sorry for the long time away, here is something I found interesting in my time away. What I noticed was if you were to graph the 2x+m on the graph, which is the result of taking the derivative of the product of the function and its inverse, and then graph the function and the its inverse, the intersections between these three lines will occur at a distance between each of 2x+m. A example of this is: f(x) = x+1 f^-1(x) = x-1 D(x) = 2x 2x = x+1 x = 1, y= 2 2x = x-1 x = -1, y= -2 distance between these two intersections is determined by 2x. I will investigate this further.

Wolfram can usually provide some answer to problems like this: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=0%5Ei

I have seen a lot of news pertaining to the lack of female participants within the STEM fields, and I was wondering why this is. Am I making an unjustified generalization of females simply based on hyped news? Or is this a real problem? Are there any major factors involved in this trend?

I think the major population has a lack of proper understanding of science, if this is the case. But it does. The speed of light is the "speed limit." If anything went at that speed, there would be infinite mass, which would not be possible with current understanding of physics. Those questions are valuable, but simply making random, unfounded assertions is just bad science. There are many pieces of literature that can give insight into PROPER theories and hypotheses on the current matters. Read those before going any further. That is mathematically indeterminable. I would gladly accept that the Universe came about when someone got a calculator and divided by 0 and caused a huge black hole. At least that is the closest thing to being correct because there are already theories that exist that our Universe came about through black holes.

On a theoretical level, the Panopticon would cancel out the greed because though the greed exists, the system would use that greed as a way to form bonds between the individual and the system. This relates to the Panopticon idea. Of course, which relates to the idea of the Panopticon. The adopted system has both accounted for the greed in each individual as well as the social aspect of the society. This is where the "religion" comes in. EDIT: It is better to not say "cancel" because it doesn't really cancel out in reality, but it cancels out the instability(hedging), as hedging does in an economic system(the essential aspect of the Black-Scholes Model).

But wouldn't those beliefs have to be instilled in some fashion such as a Panopticon? Human greed, an instinctive element for survival, plays a big role in human interaction. In order to prevent this from destabilizing a system, that element has to be canceled out in the system. Citation: Stephenson, G.R. ―Cultural Acquisition of a Specific Learned Response Among Rhesus Monkeys. In D. Starek, R. Schneider, and H.J. Kuhn (eds.), Progress in Primatology, Stuttgart: Fischer, 1967, pp. 283 Then what term would best describe these elements?

I can see the relation between priority or ritual, but how would those include the belief systems involved? Evolutionarly speaking, priority and ritual are the essential aspects in the concept of religion, but summing it up with those terms, I don't see how that would work. I could replace the term with ideology, but with the definition: It doesn't describe the panoptic element involved. EDIT: Either I find a new word to sum up the concept or make one up, and doing the latter is not favorable in my opinion.

I described earlier that the effects that the system have on the external aspects are not related to the idea, but merely to the inner workings of the system(at least I think I did. If not, then consider this an addition). This is why I don't like using the term religion, because it has no association with the idea of ignorance in this context. Here is the definition of religion: This is the essential definition I am referring to. For example, there could be a religion that adopts logic as the fundamental course of humanity while sustaining the idea of a world without a greater existence.

I think the idea relies on a definition of sustained. Whether it is viewed as sustainable because of the moral implications of that society is the incorrect view of it. Sustainable, in this sense, means that the society is stable in its form, whether one form of morality is adopted or not. In this idea, religion is not the suppressant, rather it is what cancels out the human element/error in a system. As stated before, humans are naturally greedy. Therefore, that human greed must be canceled out for a stable society to form. This is where the Panopticon is required. As described within the paper as the 'internalized gaze.' This gaze is essentially the central aspect of the religion, or what is being described. EDIT: I think comparisons can be made to show the meaning of the idea. We have two communist societies: the Soviet Union and the Buddhist Communist society. While the Soviet Union relied on a human figure as this essential "gaze," the Buddhist communist society relied on a "metaphysical" gaze formed by the religion within the system. The Soviet Union fell because the human element became the gaze, while the gaze of the Buddhist society canceled out the human element within the system. Therefore, the Buddhist communist society sustained itself until, of course, another system was implemented within it, adding the dynamics of a changing system. EDIT2: The same circumstance occurs within the Black-Scholes Formula, where the idea was to try to cancel out the risk variable. When the risk variable is removed from the equation, the equation succeeds in its purpose.

In this circumstance, no religion is better than another. In fact, the idea doesn't look at any particular religion as being necessary, but the idea of religion. The effects of Capitalism on the external objects is determined by the human society, not the system itself. This is where the religion comes into play. EDIT: Essentially, in the equation that models the idea, the human greed(instinctive greed/survival) is eliminated from the system itself.

The idea doesn't state that any system is more successful than another. It states the requirement for a political or economic system to be sustainable in the long run must have a "religion"(and I use this term with some distaste because of its associations) that is implemented within it. The existence of best interest is what drives the system through the use of the Panopticon, whether in reference to Bentham's Panopticon or Foucault's Panopticon. Is there an article that can back up this statement?

What? I think I talk about the dynamics within the draft(I might have not since I don't tend to put all my thoughts down on it). I have been trying to solve this part, but I think an example of a system being sustainable with both the "religious" aspect and the system is the Buddhist society I referred to. The only destructive force that broke it was the implementation of a Capitalist system within it that changed the dynamics of the system. A majority of the destruction comes with the injection of new systems within a currently existing and stable system. EDIT: I still don't see the relevancy of what you brought up earlier in your post. EDIT2: I think the term 'hedging' could be applied to the idea. Dynamic hedging is involved in the development of the Black-Sholes formula. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black%E2%80%93Scholes_model I think the Black-Scholes Formula could give insight into an actual equation to give a more precise model of the idea. EDIT3: I think you brought up a good point with the evolution of a species. I think Price's equation can give insight into the dynamics of a combination of systems I don't know how the equations can be combined to make an overall equation for the idea, but they might give insight into one.

I would think probabilities would be unique to random numbers in comparison with a sequence that does have a pattern, but your statement doesn't make any logical sense, sorry to say.

Sorry if I couldn't make a good title for the speculation, but that is all I had. NOTE: Religion is not, in this paper, associated with the metaphysical aspects. It is only related to its effect in a group. Also, prosperous has many definitions, but in this case has the definition of stability in relation to goals and agendas of a society. The definition in relation to the idea may change to better suit the idea. Also, this idea is still in progress. Later on, the idea may not work out in the end. however I have been thinking about the idea and thought I might post it here to get peer review. I never planned to even have the paper read by others because I have no experience in political science, but thought the idea might explore somethings. Of course, I might be wrong. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-fGMkrVm6liedfQRXkLYkFlB_40qwBni_zXdOG0x_mk/edit?usp=sharing This draft is incomplete. It is all that I have written so far. EDIT: I have left the Buddhist community example nameless because I remember watching a documentary on a Buddhist society(can't remember where) in one of my classes that showed a "prosperous" community that lived on the ideals of Communism. If anyone could give a reference to this society, I would be glad. I wonder why I don't keep my lecture notes for certain classes. References: Jeremy Bentham's Panopticon letters: http://cartome.org/panopticon2.htm Michel Foucault's book: <removed by mod - until copyright question is answered> NOTE2: Some of the papers I have cited in the paper are from my college library. I don't know if they are accessible anywhere else. If you need a quote from the sources, I can happily provide them. NOTE3: The equations in the paper are more in-theory than actual logical equations. They are a template as to what the equations might look like. NOTE4: The human function is something to describe human error, as in case examples with the Black-Scholes model and how it failed to account for the human element, or error. When a group used it as a way to discover its implications, it began failing to a certain point. There is another documentary that talks about this: The documentary later talks about how it failed because of worldly events(the human element/error).

I should have clarified what I meant through out the thread. My apologies. As String Junkies has stated, I am more interested in exploring the possibility than anything. While there is no direct evidence of either side, claiming that there is no pattern in relation to our own knowledge does not mean there could be one found in the future.

Well, if you want a formula for all prime numbers I can give you none. It was not what I claimed in the beginning. It was assumed that evidence/proof is always direct within Mathematics. Circumstantial evidence is irrelevant unless one is investigating the proof itself. On a further note, there is evidence, by your definition, of both sides of the argument. I don't see your point though.